-
Asian Journal of Psychiatry Jun 2021This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and acceptability of the different types of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for the treatment of panic disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and acceptability of the different types of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for the treatment of panic disorder (PD) in adult patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1995 and 2020 on the use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for the treatment of PD. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
42 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis, with a comparison of 11 interventions.Escitalopram (odds ratios OR 1.52, 95 % credible interval CI 1.09-2.10), venlafaxine (OR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.16-1.51) and benzodiazepines (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.29-1.75) had greater efficacy and acceptability than the placebo. Imipramine(OR 1.43, 95 % CI 1.15-1.79) was also demonstrated to be efficacious and tolerated but the results were restricted to small sample size. Moreover, paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine, citalopram and clomipramine (OR 1.37, 1.36, 1.45, 1.33 and 1.36, respectively) were more efficacious, although the acceptability of paroxetine and sertraline were significantly less tolerated than benzodiazepines. Notably, the efficacy of reboxetine and fluvoxamine were merely as equal as that of the placebo.
OUTCOMES
This is the first systematic review of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for the treatment of PD to use a network analysis. Escitalopram and venlafaxine as well as benzodiazepines may be effective choices as treatments for PD with relatively good acceptability, which still needs to be confirmed byhigh-quality RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Panic Disorder; Paroxetine
PubMed: 33965693
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102664 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT. We rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables. More than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms. Seizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning. Two RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs. There are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression. RCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33860531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010682.pub3 -
CNS Spectrums Jun 2021Most antidepressants have a delayed onset of action and must be administered for several weeks to generate therapeutic effects. Trazodone is a serotonin antagonist and...
BACKGROUND
Most antidepressants have a delayed onset of action and must be administered for several weeks to generate therapeutic effects. Trazodone is a serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder. The once-a-day (OAD) formulation of trazodone has an improved tolerability profile compared to its conventional formulations. In this study, we systematically reviewed the evidence available for the antidepressant efficacy and early improvement in depressive symptoms with trazodone OAD treatment.
METHOD
We conducted a PubMed database search for randomized controlled trials published from 2005 to 2020.
RESULTS
Two studies, a placebo-controlled and an active-comparator (venlafaxine extended-release or XR) study were found. Both the studies demonstrated that trazodone exhibits antidepressant activity at a starting dose of 150 mg/day and results in statistically significant greater reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) scores within 1 week of starting treatment compared to placebo or venlafaxine XR (P < .05). Trazodone also resulted in significant early improvement in the HAM-D17 sleep disturbance factor compared to placebo or venlafaxine XR at day 7 (P < .05). This clinical effect is supported by in vitro proprietary data for the affinity of trazodone for different target receptors. Activity at these receptors may underlie trazodone's fast antidepressant action.
CONCLUSIONS
Trazodone, if properly dosed, can be an effective antidepressant with early onset of action and good tolerability. Future studies designed to specifically evaluate onset and timing of improvement of depressive symptoms remain necessary to confirm and extend these results.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Trazodone
PubMed: 33731232
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852921000304 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Aug 2021Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This study aimed to quantify effect size differences of RCTs and non-RCTs in the treatment of depression with venlafaxine and duloxetine and to identify effect modifying predictors.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including all prospective trials, which evaluated the treatment effects of duloxetine or venlafaxine in patients with depression. The primary outcome was the pre-post effect size after acute therapy, which were compared between RCTs and non-RCTs. Moreover, an exploratory analysis of predictors in a mixed meta-regression model within an information-theoretic approach was performed.
RESULTS
171 RCTs and 74 non-RCTs were included. The pre-post effect size differed significantly between RCTs and non-RCTs (-3.04 vs. -2.62, Δ = 0.41, p = 0.012, high heterogeneity). Study characteristics were very similar between RCTs and non-RCTs. Most important variables to predict effect sizes were 'depression severity', 'dose' and 'number of participants'.
CONCLUSION
Despite differences in effect sizes between RCTs and non-RCTs, study design is not clearly an important predictor for the effect sizes. Our results question the common assumption that non-RCTs are generally better suited to describe a drug's effectiveness in clinical practice than RCTs. Future studies and their reporting should put more emphasis on the description of external validity, in order to allow better assessments of clinical relevance.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Prospective Studies; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 33661520
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13293 -
CNS Spectrums Feb 2021More than 50% patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have severe functional impairment. The restoration of patient functioning is a critical therapeutic goal...
Comparative efficacy of pharmacological treatments on measures of self-rated functional outcomes using the Sheehan Disability Scale in patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
More than 50% patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have severe functional impairment. The restoration of patient functioning is a critical therapeutic goal among patients with MDD. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments on self-rated functional outcomes using the Sheehan Disability Scale in adults with MDD in randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to December 10, 2019. Summary statistics are reported as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities.
RESULTS
We included 42 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 18 998) evaluating the efficacy of 13 different pharmacological treatments on functional outcomes, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Duloxetine was the most effective pharmacological agent on functional outcomes, followed by (ranked by efficacy): paroxetine, levomilnacipran, venlafaxine, quetiapine, desvenlafaxine, agomelatine, escitalopram, amitriptyline, bupropion, sertraline, vortioxetine, and fluoxetine. Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were more effective than other drug classes. Additionally, the comparison-adjusted funnel plot suggested the publication bias between small and large studies was relatively low.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that there may be differences across antidepressant agents and classes with respect to self-reported functional outcomes. Validation and replication of these findings in large-scale RCTs are warranted. Our research results will be clinically useful for guiding psychiatrists in treating patients with MDD and functional impairment. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018116663.
PubMed: 33583460
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852921000171 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2021Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment discontinuation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide quantitative measures on short-term rates of gastrointestinal SEs in MDD patients treated with second-generation antidepressants. An electronic search of the literature was conducted by using MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science - Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible studies had to focus on the use of at least one of 15 antidepressants commonly used in MDD (i.e., agomelatine, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine) and report data on treatment-emergent gastrointestinal SEs (i.e. nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, anorexia, increased appetite and dry mouth) within 12 weeks of treatment. Overall, 304 studies were included in the meta-analyses. All the considered antidepressants showed higher rates of gastrointestinal SEs than placebo. Escitalopram and sertraline were shown to be the least tolerated antidepressants on the gastrointestinal tract, being associated with all the considered SEs with the exception of constipation and increased appetite, while mirtazapine was shown to be the antidepressant with fewer side effects on the gut, being only associated with increased appetite. In conclusion, commonly used antidepressants showed different profiles of gastrointestinal SEs, possibly related to their mechanisms of action. The specific tolerability profile of each compound should be considered by clinicians when prescribing antidepressants in order to improve adherence to treatment and increase positive outcomes in patients with MDD.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Constipation; Depressive Disorder, Major; Diarrhea; Humans; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 33549697
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110266 -
Headache Jan 2021Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to...
BACKGROUND
Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.
RESULTS
We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; low-to-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
For prevention of primary headache, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine. Triptans and low-dose aspirin may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. Future research should identify effective and safe interventions in pregnancy and postpartum.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 33433020
DOI: 10.1111/head.14041 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Apr 2021Data regarding the ability of antidepressants to enter fetal, newborn and infant fluids have become gradually available, but mechanisms of antidepressant transfer remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Data regarding the ability of antidepressants to enter fetal, newborn and infant fluids have become gradually available, but mechanisms of antidepressant transfer remain poorly understood. Here we calculated penetration ratios in an array of matrices from combined samples of pregnant/breastfeeding women taking antidepressants.
METHOD
We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies with concentrations of antidepressants from maternal blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and/or breast milk. Penetration ratios were calculated by dividing the concentrations in amniotic fluid, umbilical cord plasma or breast milk by the maternal plasma concentration. When data from multiple studies were available, we calculated combined penetration ratios, weighting the study mean by study size.
RESULTS
Eighty-five eligible studies were identified. For amniotic fluid, the highest penetration ratios were estimated for venlafaxine (mean 2.77, range 0.43-4.70 for the active moiety) and citalopram (mean 2.03, range 0.35-6.97), while the lowest ratios were for fluvoxamine (mean 0.10) and fluoxetine (mean 0.11, range 0.02-0.20 for the active moiety). For umbilical cord plasma, nortriptyline had the highest ratio (mean 2.97, range 0.25-26.43) followed by bupropion (mean 1.14, range 0.3-5.08). For breast milk, the highest ratios were observed for venlafaxine (mean 2.59, range 0.85-4.85), mianserin (mean 2.22, range 0.80-3.64) and escitalopram (mean 2.19, range 1.68-3.00).
CONCLUSION
We observed considerable variability across antidepressants regarding their ability to enter fetal, newborn and infant fluids. Measuring antidepressant concentrations in a maternal blood sample can provide a reliable estimate of fetal/infant exposure, although further evidence for concentration-dependent effects is required.
Topics: Amniotic Fluid; Antidepressive Agents; Breast Feeding; Female; Fetal Blood; Humans; Infant; Milk, Human; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 33358964
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110228 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders associated with substantial dysfunction and socioeconomic burden. Pharmacotherapy is... (Review)
Review
Comparative Remission Rates and Tolerability of Drugs for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trials.
: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders associated with substantial dysfunction and socioeconomic burden. Pharmacotherapy is the first choice for GAD. Remission [Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score ≤7] is regarded as a crucial treatment goal for patients with GAD. There is no up-to-date evidence to compare remission rate and tolerability of all available drugs by using network meta-analysis. Therefore, the goal of our study is to update evidence and determine the best advantageous drugs for GAD in remission rate and tolerability profiles. : We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, wanfang data, China Biology Medicine and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to March 2020 to identify eligible double-blind, RCTs reporting the outcome of remission in adult patients who received any pharmacological treatment for GAD. Two reviewers independently assessed quality of included studies utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool as described in Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and extracted data from all manuscripts. Our outcomes were remission rate (proportion of participants with a final score of seven or less on HAM-A) and tolerability (treatments discontinuations due to adverse events). We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each outcome via pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. : Overall, 30 studies were included, comprising 32 double-blind RCTs, involving 13,338 participants diagnosed as GAD by DSM-IV criteria. Twenty-eight trials were rated as moderate risk of bias, four trials as low. For remission rate, agomelatine (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.74-4.19), duloxetine (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.47-2.40), escitalopram (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48-2.78), paroxetine (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.25-2.42), quetiapine (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.39-2.55), and venlafaxine (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.69-3.07) were superior to placebo. For tolerability, sertraline, agomelatine, vortioxetine, and pregabalin were found to be comparable to placebo. However, the others were worse than placebo in terms of tolerability, with ORs ranging between 1.86 (95% CI 1.25-2.75) for tiagabine and 5.98 (95% CI 2.41-14.87) for lorazepam. In head-to-head comparisons, agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, quetiapine, and venlafaxine were more efficacious than tiagabine in terms of remission rate, ORs from 1.66 (95% CI 1.04-2.65) for duloxetine to 2.38 (95% CI 1.32-4.31) for agomelatine. We also found that agomelatine (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.15-3.75) and venlafaxine (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08-2.86) were superior to vortioxetine. Lorazepam and quetiapine were poorly tolerated when compared with other drugs. : Of these interventions, only agomelatine manifested better remission with relatively good tolerability but these results were limited by small sample sizes. Duloxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, paroxetine, and quetiapine showed better remission but were poorly tolerated.
PubMed: 33343351
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.580858 -
Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) Apr 2020(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
(Reprinted with permission from . 2019 Jul;6(7):601-609).
PubMed: 33343239
DOI: 10.1176/appi.focus.18204